From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 10 22:09:51 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id WAA00865 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 22:09:51 -0700 Received: from gndrsh.aac.dev.com (gndrsh.aac.dev.com [198.145.92.241]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA00856 for ; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 22:09:47 -0700 Received: (from rgrimes@localhost) by gndrsh.aac.dev.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id WAA08015; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 22:07:23 -0700 From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <199506110507.WAA08015@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> Subject: Re: Slight flame from Linux user To: bakul@netcom.com (Bakul Shah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 22:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Cc: nate@trout.sri.mt.net, sef@kithrup.com, leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com, hackers@freebsd.org, terry@cs.weber.edu In-Reply-To: <199506102325.QAA08213@netcom6.netcom.com> from "Bakul Shah" at Jun 10, 95 04:25:33 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1694 Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > > > I disagree. There are too many things that aren't plain enough in the > > copyright to make it safe to distribute it and make money at the same > > time. Note, even though lcc may not be the primary money-maker, the > > license is not specific enough to allow someone like WC to distribute > > the compiler w/out the possibility of being sued for 'making money' from > > the compiler. > > I just reread it carefully and I don't see this. As long as > you include the copyright notice, acknowledge its source and > state it is available free of charge you have met the terms > of the copyright. There is some vagueness in the copyright > notice but even the most restrictive reading seems to allow > WC's distribution. The problem is with the word ``unmodified'', if you can make it work right out of the can with out one line of patch, well, great, but some how I doubt it would stay that way very long :-(. > > Again, I'm no legal expert but have enough experience with the legal > > process to know that unless it's crystal clear, it's not worth hassling > > with, especially considering the 'free' status of FreeBSD. > > A pity if lcc gets left out due to its vague copyright. It > may be worth sending off an email to the authors (I'd do it > but an official voice from FreeBSD may carry a lot more > weight). May be if enough people complain they'd see light. The way they have worded it sounds like they don't want you to touch the code, IMHO, that is some bad wording that could stand to be redone. > --bakul > -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Custom computers for FreeBSD